| 1 |
On 01-10-2010 13:05:22 +0200, Al wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2010/10/1 Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>: |
| 3 |
> > On 01-10-2010 12:46:48 +0200, Al wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> The parity compiler sounds very ambitious and I am curious. On the |
| 5 |
> >> other hands I also see the advantages in Microsofts PATH approach. |
| 6 |
> >> Dynamic libraries doen't depend on a special path any more and can be |
| 7 |
> >> moved around. All you have to do, is to adapt the PATH variable to the |
| 8 |
> >> new location. That makes your programs more portable. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > you have a wrong perception of portable to me |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It's not a wrong perception, it's a wider perception. In german it |
| 13 |
> translates with: tragbar, transportabel, portabel. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Here I use it in the sense of portablility inside one file system. |
| 16 |
> Maybe you can find a better term. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
porting to me sounds like being able to bring to other systems |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
you seem to be discussing relocation here |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 25 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives